What's new

IAM Fleet Service topic

Status
Not open for further replies.
... Which is all the more interesting considering he came from TW...

I'd also add the (almost) complete deletion of LLP's from NW's CBA's, and the fumbling of the organizing campaign after the merger w/DL. Both under Roach's watch.

I don't know if Pantoja (another TW alum) will be any better, but I can't imagine he'll be much worse.
I had asked Roach to allow me to do the DL ramp campaign because I saw all the politics going on with NW and realized that they were going to get their arse handed to them again against a very formidable anti union company. Roach declined and went with someone with little to no education and O-fer on organizing. I then called him and asked him to allow me to put together a winning campaign for the CO stews. He said I was not a stew and it wouldn't work????? I told him point blank that his stews made $13,000 more per year than the AFA stews and the campaign was his too lose. He chose IL who is a nice guy but was like a 5th grader going up against a 12th garder in a backyard brawl. Closer to home, Roach informed me that he wanted to 'pull the plug' on airtran and have those 3,000 workers walk into a merger as mincemeat for the TWU and IAM. RD supported that and I was suppose to piss on the airtran folks. But they were messing with the wrong guy and publically, in LAS, I communicated with RD, RR, SP in the LAS casino in a way in which they trembled. That morning, Roach started his crap again [he just don't listen] in front of my airtran people. The thing he didn't realize is that I wasn't threatening him, I was being straight up with him, and he found out from my aritran folks and me in front of many of our members at the conventions that I didn't come to play and I came to win. I met with RD and told him I was going to 'crack his skull' metaphocially of course if he kept supporing the INTL screwing the airtran folks. I succeeded in fighting our own union and proceeding forward with an election that secured representation for those airtran folks at a time when they needed it most. Along the way, RD cut off some funds and wanted me to lose the campaign along with Roach, hedging a bet with DL 142. So with little funds, we still won since I had put together a solid team of our own members who stuck with the campaign.

Next up was UA ramp. Once again, Roach didn't want the District to do squat in the campaign and he wanted all the credit. While we didn't give a rip about credit, myself and DA knew that if we sided with RD and not the members, we would lose our union. IL, fresh off of his terrible beating with the CO stews, was assigned to head up the organizing efforts of the district for the UA ramp against the Teamsters. Once again, I had to become an #### and threaten our union in a way in which they had to back off. I don't like being an #### but RD didn't have the members back and for some reason feared Roach more than anyone else. When I was telling RD that the INTL would just screw this organizing drive all up by sh*tting folks, he told me, "If we buck Roach he will just split up the district and send us into trusteeship.". Well, the good thing was that Delaney was a complete and utter pushover so I just approached Roach myself through an email to one of his 'key persons' and let Roach know that if he even thinks for one minute that IL is going to run this district into the ground with a terrible organizing plan that will screw our members then there will be hell to pay 'in other ways'. Once again, I had to be a D*ck because Delaney had no balls whatsoever.
Then, and only then, we were able to kick the INTL out of many elements of the organizing drive and we became successful. DA also had to become a D*ck and make threats to secure the money needed to win. Even then, the Teamsters outspended us 10 to 1 but the Teamsters had their own problems that I knew my organizing plan could exploit.

One thing I have learned, whether it's negotiations or organizing, the INTL can and will F*uck things up. It's time that we have leadership that believes in District autonomy and doesn't yield to every damn thing the INTL says. Also, it's time that we actually have folks in leadership positions that have post graduate education. Can we exterminate the INTL? No but we can quit the 'code of silence' that the DL and INTL play to protect them and management and we can actually become transparent and release the masses. The INTL wants to corral the masses, put muzzles on them, and give them as little information as possible to keep them deaf, blind, dumb, and ignorant. We have to smash that down and it will have to start with sacrifice and trust. And it doesn't hurt to have some younger blood in there that isn't feeble and far removed from the ramp. Delaney has been off the ramp for 30 years and is closer to management than management. He's also the INTL incarnate in the District.

regards,

Tim Nelson
 
Explain what they were briefed on. I'm the local chair and I dont have an AGC. I have not been briefed on anything. I was told that Gil Simmons was going to be the fill in AGC for my region. I called the number on the DL web page to get a full mailbox. I called every AGC on the page and did get two to answer their phones. They refered me back to Gil. Can you tell me what we are supposed to be briefed on. I have the TA. It reads the 2% jan2012 and it reads 2% july 1st if a contract hasnt been settled.
Well, after reading your post and specific locations, it's not hard to figure who you are. I know from being a part of the ND that they get pissed off like hell when folks go on facebook and out them. They can't stand behind their word so they usually develop handles and stand behind curtains. So expect a phone call, probably within 24 hours from someone who wants to kiss your arse now and act like your best friend. That's what they do. All talk, no walk.

regards,

Tim Nelson
 
The 2% pay increase will happen in July of 2012. It is plain as day in the TA that we as a collective voted in. It sux horrible, and looks like every July from now until we vote in a new agreement is when we will get our annual raise. Thank you Canoli for screwing us over again. Great job. What was he thinking?
 
Then, and only then, we were able to kick the INTL out of many elements of the organizing drive and we became successful. DA also had to become a D*ck and make threats to secure the money needed to win. Even then, the Teamsters outspended us 10 to 1 but the Teamsters had their own problems that I knew my organizing plan could exploit.


regards,

Tim Nelson
Are you and your bi polar friend DA still holding hands? What is the matter, he flipped back to Rich and left you out cold? You and I both know that DA was out of line at PH, and if it wasn't for RD, he would have been removed by RR. Wasn't DA the one who tried to rob you? And who came to your support, we did. Mr Nelson, this may surprise you but we will be fine in our PCE election. We did have to remove you to win it.

Now enjoy those knee pads and don't forget to put on your hearing protection because the word on the street is that everyone everywhere is turning you and your ticket down because the ND is strong. The only one who said yes to you is DL and we will bury him in his station. His station doesn't even like him. You two deserve eachother. Oh, you didn't know that we knew DL was on your ticket, did you? Maybe I should have kept quiet.
 
The 2% pay increase will happen in July of 2012. It is plain as day in the TA that we as a collective voted in. It sux horrible, and looks like every July from now until we vote in a new agreement is when we will get our annual raise. Thank you Canoli for screwing us over again. Great job. What was he thinking?
PJ, I did look at it again and its JUL. However in the contract it is JAN. My question is as it was before. Is the contract legal and binding. Am I to believe that its not? So if the blame goes back to Canale, I say that was one for the good guys. I'm under the impression that our contract is legal and binding and the district should believe the same. So now wheres the problem. The company needs to follow the contract.
 
PJ, I did look at it again and its JUL. However in the contract it is JAN. My question is as it was before. Is the contract legal and binding. Am I to believe that its not? So if the blame goes back to Canale, I say that was one for the good guys. I'm under the impression that our contract is legal and binding and the district should believe the same. So now wheres the problem. The company needs to follow the contract.

Look on page 2 of TA, IV. Effective Date
This letter of Agreement:

A. Governs in case of conflict between one of its terms and a provision of the existing US Airways Fleet Service CBA, as amended

BTW, it is a one time raise in July of 2012.
 
Look on page 2 of TA, IV. Effective Date
This letter of Agreement:

A. Governs in case of conflict between one of its terms and a provision of the existing US Airways Fleet Service CBA, as amended

BTW, it is a one time raise in July of 2012.
So what does that imply? Are you suggesting that LOA Under IV efffective date dictates any mistakes they made in printing are invalid. So there was no letter of agreement after they printed the contract and proofed it over. So our contract is invalid? Man this is cofusing
 
So what does that imply? Are you suggesting that LOA Under IV efffective date dictates any mistakes they made in printing are invalid. So there was no letter of agreement after they printed the contract and proofed it over. So our contract is invalid? Man this is cofusing

The TA trumps errors in the contract. The TA says July 2012 raise which trumps mistake in CBA. It is a one time raise until a new contract is ratified.
 
The TA trumps errors in the contract. The TA says July 2012 raise which trumps mistake in CBA. It is a one time raise until a new contract is ratified.
Ok. So if thats true, then anything that wasnt changed by the TA would still be in the contract and if by some odd reason they left it out then your saying the LOA trumps that. Now that means that article 28 paragraph C of the old contract dated1/31/2005 (pocket size) but was removed in the post contract and not discussed or changed in the TA is still valid and the company is still in violation of not providing pocket sized books, and the grievence that was filed on that issuse is still valid. The two paragraphs from old to new are written differently.
 
Ok. So if thats true, then anything that wasnt changed by the TA would still be in the contract and if by some odd reason they left it out then your saying the LOA trumps that. Now that means that article 28 paragraph C of the old contract dated1/31/2005 (pocket size) but was removed in the post contract and not discussed or changed in the TA is still valid and the company is still in violation of not providing pocket sized books, and the grievence that was filed on that issuse is still valid. The two paragraphs from old to new are written differently.

No, our current CBA is what we go by but if there is a typo from what the TA says, the TA trumps the typo in our current CBA. Per our current CBA, we get an adequately bound contract not pocket sized. The language in the current CBA is what we go by, not the 2005 CBA.
 
No, our current CBA is what we go by but if there is a typo from what the TA says, the TA trumps the typo in our current CBA. Per our current CBA, we get an adequately bound contract not pocket sized. The language in the current CBA is what we go by, not the 2005 CBA.
I dont understand. Why would that be any different. I mean some of the language is the same. Most of the contract was not even in consideration so it stayed the same but when it changes the company makes out. why?
 
Hello, I'm new and i will be posting soon.......... but i just got one question why are you Argue over 2% ? we lost it when that POS contract was signed.. So what we going to do about it ? think brothers... 😀
 
Hello, I'm new and i will be posting soon.......... but i just got one question why are you Argue over 2% ? we lost it when that POS contract was signed.. So what we going to do about it ? think brothers... 😀
Not an arguement. A debate
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top